Not every red flag means stop—sometimes, it just means pause and investigate. 

Behind the word ‘consider’ lies confusion for many employers and job seekers. A less bright status defined by the absence of the word ‘clear’ would send someone into a trance on what will happen next. Not really a disqualifying problem, it means a closer look.

So, let’s break down the meaning of the status, its interpretation by businesses, and how to tackle it in a balanced approach in terms of risk versus opportunity.

What Does Consider Mean on a Background Check? 

The status ‘consider’ doesn’t disqualify a candidate. It signals the employer to evaluate the findings against the requirements of the job and any risk thresholds. Also, it isn’t automatically a red flag; it would apply to some information that has appeared in a background check that needs further scrutiny by the employer.

For example, a candidate may have a misdemeanour unrelated to the job responsibilities that is a little from years ago. Here, the employer probably will take the context, recency, and relevance into consideration prior to planning.

A Second Chance at Employment 

You’re hiring a delivery driver. One of the candidates has a pretty clean record, except that there’s a speeding ticket from four years ago that calls for a “Consider”. By taking this into account, you might weigh this as not a deal breaker, especially since his or her driving record afterward is spotless. 

This real-life instance indicates how background checks should inform, rather than dictate, hiring decisions. The idea is to have individuals in the workforce worth their salt rather than a one-size-fits-all policy of kicking out candidates based on very minor or outdated infractions. 

Why Context Matters in the Hiring Process

The essence of dealing with this status really comes from context. Employers need to go beyond raw data to know exactly what they’ve peeped into. In this regard, many critical considerations include: 

• Relevance to the position  
• Severity of the issue  
• Timeframe: How long ago did it occur?  
• Pattern of Behaviour: Was it a one-time mistake or a recurring issue?  

For example, a retail position might not care if a candidate has a past-due utility bill, whereas a finance-related position may want to probe deeper since it might have a more stringent criterion.

Legal and Ethical Boundaries

In various regions, the employers are duty-bound to furnish an opportunity to candidates to clarify any information that is flagged before the adverse action occurs. This is not only good form: it is also evidently fair. Laws in the United States, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the GDPR guidelines in Europe look to ensure transparency and the candidate’s right to challenge any findings. 

In alignment with ethical standards, this also favours the growing trend of inclusive hiring. Imposing excessive penalties on people for inconsequential past mistakes fuels bias and unnecessarily reduces an already narrow talent pool.

What Employers Should Do?

A straightforward framework for employers to follow in the face of this flag would be as follows:

1. Look at the full report. Do not rely exclusively on the summary.
2. Weigh out how serious and relevant this flagged item is.
3. Call the candidate for clarification if necessary.
4. Document the flow of decision-making for regulatory and consistency reasons.
5. Determine a decision that is fair, informed, and balances risk against opportunity.

With a systematic approach, organizations can ensure that they are not misapplying rejection decisions against strong candidates.

Industry-Specific Considerations

In some industries, such as health care, financial services, and education, background checks tend to be stricter in recognition of the greater sensitivity involved with the type of work being pursued. In those categories, the certain existence of this word may thereby bear more weight. For instance, 

• Committing the offense would, in many jurisdictions, bar anybody from working directly with vulnerable people.  
• Being a history of falsification, this raises some eyebrows for the finance job.  

However, it’s important to note that context always matters, even in regulated industries. Employers should look at the facts of each case while still complying with regulations. 

Real-Life Example

A hotel manager, upon viewing an application, notes this status for the applicant due to shoplifting 10 years ago. Since then, the applicant has completed hospitality training and worked steadily, with excellent references.  

In this case, the manager could feel comfortable proceeding with the hire, thereby confirming that the candidate has grown and rehabilitated. This supports the view that “Consider” is not a red flag—it’s a yellow flag, suggesting caution but not outright rejection.

Building Trust Through Transparency

The main thing is that the employer should be honest with the candidates regarding issues about background checks, probably developing trust along the lines in the sense that they really value integrity rather than perfection. Most candidates want this chance of hearing their story to be known. It usually brings forth an aspect of resilience, accountability, and maturity.

It would also play into the firm by way of improving the reputation as an employer and attracting equally valuable candidates with the same principles with which the firm operates.

Best Practices to Manage Risk While Hiring

It’s best practice to manage risk in hiring by pairing background checks with:

• Reference checks to confirm work histories and behaviours
• Structured interviews to examine candidates’ characters and make judgments
• Probation for on-the-job assessment
• An ongoing performance viability test must be undertaken to ensure reliability and consistency 

Soft skills, work ethic, and adaptability cannot always be reported. Hence, the importance of holistic hiring practices, which thus should include other things that would better inform possible employees. 

When “Consider” Becomes a Positive Signal 

Sometimes, flagging information can start a very promising candid conversation. Beyond this person probably being able to discuss their past lessons learned, he/she could even demonstrate honesty, resilience, and accountability-invaluable traits for any team. 

The liability-turned-accountable individuals can also become loyal and high-performing employees in your organization. 

Final Thoughts

Indeed, understanding what the “Consider” status has going on will enable employers to make better, informed decisions when hiring. It clarifies the context, the conversation, and the thing in modern recruitment. More and more, as companies try to form diverse, reliable teams and trustworthy cultures, learning how to pass the background report flags is a needed advantage under competitive conditions. 

Ready to streamline your hiring process and make smarter, informed decisions? Use the advanced staff vetting feature of Smart Workforce to interpret background reports accurately, transparently, and easily.  

Discover a better way to build trust right from the start. Book a demo or go for a 14-day free trial.